Is Peter Really the Rock of the Church? (part 2)

Second Response

While there are legitimate academic questions to be studied and resolved regarding papal jurisdiction, the email critic falsely contended that my few comments stretched certain points beyond credulity. He viewed the Church's claims to be a fabrication and suggested that we had inserted our own peculiar ideas into the Word of God. In this vein, he compared Catholic biblical interpretation to the Supreme Court's insertion of a right to privacy, i.e. for abortion in the tragic "Roe vs. Wade" decision. I brushed his association of this matter as non-topical. (Coincidentally, the lady in question in this infamous case, came over to the pro-life position and recently became a Roman Catholic).

To my absolute surprise he quoted a Catholic historian from the middle of the last century who claimed that papal prerogatives were read back into the Scriptural texts and taught as doctrine comparatively late in the life of the Catholic Church. While Professor Dollinger showed great promise, he made three attempts at writing a general history of the Church and left much of his work unfinished. He is hardly a credible authority, although his name has conveniently appeared in the anti-Catholic rhetoric of certain ill-equipped protagonists to the Church. Dollinger quickly found himself in conflict with the neo-Scholastics and with the Roman Curia. It has been surmised that his Germanic prejudices propelled him to support Prussian nationalism and antagonism against the papacy. His problematical conclusions on the doctrine of Infallibility and papal temporal power led to his formal excommunication by the first Vatican Council.

He then made the dogmatic claim that the fathers of the Church (in light of Matthew 16:18 & John 21:17) did not believe or teach papal primacy. That was untrue and more than a little bit absurd. St. Ambrose (397 AD) said, echoing the tradition he himself had inherited, "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia," (Where there is Peter, there is the Church). Making an analogy, he contended, "where the living trunk is, there is the tree." Where we discover the center, we find the circle; where the foundation stone is, we see the building. Peter is the visible head of the Church who shepherds the flock of Christ. Christ is our invisible and supreme head. Where we find one, we find the other. Ultimately, where we find Christ, we encounter salvation, itself. Peter is given the keys to the kingdom.

I told him that he was correct that Catholics are duty-bound to interpret the Catholic truths and Scriptures in a way faithful to the unanimous consent of the fathers-- in other words, the early Church. (If he accepted this, then I suggested that it was illogical not to accept the Eucharist and priesthood about which they preached and wrote. This pertinent fact invalidated his whole argument from tradition. He had erred in his use of both primary and secondary sources. The limitations of time and email itself restricted my response but I felt dutybound to try.

I sought to give a few instances to prove that he was wrong about testimony from the early Church:

Tertullian states: "Nothing could be hidden from Peter, called the rock, as it was upon him as upon a foundation stone that the Church was built; from Peter I say, who received they keys of the kingdom of heaven, with power to bind and to loosen on earth and in heaven." Elsewhere he states: "The Lord gave the keys to Peter, and by Peter to the Church" (Praescrips, No. 22, Scorp.)

The genius Origen asserts: "though the Church is built upon all the Apostles, Peter nevertheless is her principal foundation and the very solid rock upon which Christ has built her." He also says: "Peter received the supreme power to feed the sheep" (from his Homilies). He goes on to say, speaking about the papal office and succession: "Though our Lord gave to all the Apostles the power to bind and to loosen, yet, in order that unity should come from the authority of one person alone, He spoke to Peter and to him alone, when He said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'"

An incident of importance would arise in the Nestorian crisis, which threatened to divide Christ into two Sons, one human and the other divine. When the intervention of Rome was requested and Pope Leo's tome to Flavin, bishop of Constantinople, was read at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD), the bishops spontaneously exclaimed: "This is the belief of our Fathers, this is the belief of the Apostles. It is thus that we believe; it is thus that all orthodox Christians believe. Anathema to him who will not so believe! It is Peter who has spoken to us through Leo." And later, the confirmation of the acts of the Council is requested from the Holy Father "in order that he may supply by his authority that which may be wanting to the authority of his children."

Here are a few words from Pope Leo the Great himself (toward the end of the patristic period) speaking about his sacred trust and emphasizing his power: "Peter alone was chosen to be placed at the head of all the Apostles and all the Fathers of the Church. Though there are many priests among the people of God, yet Peter rules them all as Christ governs them in the first place. It is a great and wonderful part of His divine power that God in his exceeding goodness gives to this man; if God wished to impart some of it to the other leaders in the Church, it was always through Peter that they received what God did not refuse them" (Sermon 3).

What other ancient authorities back up the Catholic position? Let me just list them: Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ephrem, St. Epiphanius, St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Eucher, Bishop of Lyons, and many other fathers and writers of the fourth and fifth centuries. Ancient lists giving the early succession of Popes also give evidence of the continuing ministry of Peter in the bishops of Rome.

I remarked that the critic's fundamentalist literalism against the importance of Christ's speaking Aramaic in preference for a convenient Greek text was amusing. Why? Because, on one hand he denied the linguistic evidence of a Hebrew saying in preference to the Greek translation, and on the other, he probably accepted the Protestant canon of the Old Testament that is based not on the Greek texts but upon the later redacted Hebrew.

Scripture does not lie. This was the battlecry from my email critic. Yes, it is true and we can be confident in the salvation truth that comes from the divinely inspired Word of God. But, people can and do lie, sometimes they even deceive themselves-- such is the downfall of putting a "personal" interpretation above that of the teaching Church instituted by Christ and guarded by the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not lie, but neither was it written in English. It was the living and teaching Church that determined which sources were reliable and how they might be interpreted. Ultimately, there can be no infallible Bible unless there is also an infallible Church.

Useful Source: Christian Apologetics by Rev. W. Devivier, S.J. (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1924).